ARTICLE 1
Billionaires should be allowed to BUY up planets and rip up an out-of-date space treaty, claims expert – by Rob Waugh – PUBLISHED: 16:55 GMT, 5 April 2012 | UPDATED: 17:48 GMT, 5 April 2012
Private companies should be able to buy land on The Moon or other planets for tourism, mining or even to sell property, a space policy expert has said.
Rand Simberg said that if governments started to provide property rights then entrepreneurs and billionaires might pile in and invest – and added that the ‘time is ripe’.
He has proposed a law that would circumvent the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which states no individual or government can have sovereignty over any body in space.
Could billionaires buy the moon? An American space expert claims that a loophole might allow investors to buy other planets
Could billionaires buy the moon? An American space expert claims that a loophole might allow investors to buy other planets
Sir Richard Branson next to the spacecraft White Knight Two: Anyone hoping to buy property in space will have to wait until people get there first – and Branson’s space flights have not happened yet
Sir Richard Branson next to the spacecraft White Knight Two: Anyone hoping to make money on property in space will have to wait until people get there first – and Branson’s passenger space flights have not happened yet
But such a move would mark a huge change in how mankind sees space and could open up the galaxy to a debacle akin to the Colonial era ‘Scramble for Africa’.
One government going alone might also incur the wrath of other nations who all remain signed up to the Outer Space Treaty.
Mr Simberg, who is based in the US, says that the law is open to challenge and does not explicitly forbid anybody from owning chunks of planets, so needs clearing up anyway.
Wired.com reported that his plan is called the Space Settlement Prize Act and was unveiled earlier this month at US conservative think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Any new law would have to work around the 1979 Moon Treaty Act which stops any nation from claiming sovereignty over The Moon, though major countries like the US and Russia have not ratified it.
Mr Simberg’s states: ‘The ratification failure of the Moon Treaty means there is no legal prohibition in force against private ownership of land on the Moon, Mars, etc., as long as the ownership is not derived from a claim of national appropriation or sovereignty (which is prohibited by the Outer Space Treaty)’
Another hurdle that would have to be overcome would be how people get to the moon – Richard Bransons’ Virgin Galactic has yet to even make its first commercial flight into orbit, let alone another planet.
But Mr Simberg said: ‘There are people who believe that rocks have rights; I’m not one of them’.
US space law lawyer Michael Listner told Wired.com that ownership of The Moon and other planets was a ‘very touchy issue’.
A sunset seen from the super-Earth planet Gliese 667 Cc. Billions of potentially habitable planets may exist in our galaxy, the Milky Way, according to a new study
Pricey destination? A sunset seen from the super-Earth planet Gliese 667 Cc – one of billions of potentially habitable planets in our Milky Way galaxy, according to scientists
‘To take that stand against the rest of the world, would take a lot of political will and the government would take a hit. It’s sort of a nonstarter,’ he said.
‘It’s similar to the way properties were pioneered in the Old West. The government opened up land and people went to settle it.’
The debate over ownership of space mirrors that on Earth – Britain recently provoked the ire of Argentina when it emerged that five UK companies are hunting for oil in the waters surrounding The Falkland Islands.
The Arctic is also emerging as a key battleground with Denmark, which owns Greenland, insisting it has the right to explore waters off its shores.
LOONY…..but, Rocks Have Rights! COOL! 😀
– OAP on something!, Ireland, 05/4/2012 19:09
Rating 1
Rubbish-pure, unfilter rubbish. no one is gonig to recognize some claim for a planet, or section of ap lanet filed long before it is pracal to get there. No one is going to accept, for example, my claim to 23% of the moon, filed in some office in Peru when , years later, itell successful miners to get off my space.
– Paul , Lansdale, PA USA, 05/4/2012 19:07
Rating 1
Lawyers are all chancers, one day the public will find out they’ve been dividing and ripping people off all along. You can’t actually own anything, only lay claim to it. I’ve claimed vast areas of the North of England, and the Falkland Islands for myself. My claim is as valid as anybody else’s. The Moon Treaty Act etc, mumbo jumbo it is not even worthy of Star Trek.
– icountlampposts, leeds, 05/4/2012 18:43
Rating 5
No one owns any planet.
– anonymous, UK, 05/4/2012 18:40
Rating 10
YOUR PLANET ?
– Klaatu, The Round Disk, 05/4/2012 18:36
Rating 3
Legal loophole could let billionaires BUY other planets before human settlers arrive (and they could even snap up the Moon) ====================No they can’t, they all belong to me.
– Gideon Webley, Wakefield, 05/4/2012 18:28
Rating 6
If you don’t own it then in my opinion you have no right to sell it.
– Me, UK, 05/4/2012 18:15
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
This desire to ‘colonize’ should be on a needs basis. And there is no need for Humanity to leave earth but instead LEARN to stop being wasteful before being given access to any other planets. Also any planet cannot be bought innately, simply because in ‘Spiritual Theory’ the dominant species inhabitants or mircroorganisms of that planet which have not evolved into a dominant species have the true rights to ownership.
Typical ‘colonial’ behaviour again. These ‘billionaires’ are going to piss off some interplanetary species council or something if they don’t stop spouting colonial nonsense. For all we know, humans are already blacklisted for ‘preventing evolution by way of slavery and consumption’ of species considered domesticated as of now. These ‘Red Ocean’ strategy guys should be very careful who they talk to, governments should be very careful who they speak to as well. Perhaps Stephen hawkins knowing that humanity’s behaviour is spiritually ignorant and spiritually barbaric so Stephen feared for humanity though intuitively at most, but not putting into words what I just wrote above.
This means humans need to civilise before being allowed to obtain technology, and this ‘I was here first’ attitude that ignores microscopic life or that makes humans feel entitled to EATING other animals (we have the meat growing technology now, those with funds and access, upgrade or be damned) which effectively prevents the animal from evolving, could very well put humanity on the ‘hit list’ of superior alien civilisations. Who knows the are keeping count of the number of species going extinct and every species that disappears could well be some alien patron’s ant farm equivalent that died and causes withdrawal of support for humanity in that ‘sector’ of space.
This does not apply to just animate species, who knows RADIOACTIVE or CONDUCTIVE MINERALS like Plutonium and Gold have an ‘astral’ or ‘ethereal’ life that is extinguished when dug up, pissing off some alien which has plutonium flesh etc (Ultraman?) . . . Man’s understanding of nuclear physics may be entirely WRONG, man’s understading of physics or even the natrure of materials and life also wrong . . . who knows, some other ALIEN billionaire already owns ALL the planets in the Universe, it’s just that they aren’t there or don’t visit for 1000 year cycles and by Intergalactic law trespassers and SQUATTERS get blown up or imprisoned in some weird space prison where they are subjected to strange probes and experiments as a form of ‘reparation’ or ‘fine’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraman
Humans only have physical technology, what if Aliens cans stop time? Bend time? Bend reality? What then Mr.Billionaire with no spiritual application of physical laws? If mankind cannot even take care of poverty or be civilised enough to not have wars, what chance has mankind in the Universal scheme of multi-dimensional realities? Try telekinesis FOR REAL and solving poverty issues first. Capitalism is much like the invention of the Wheel. So whats the equivalent of ‘the Engine’ as opposed to the wheel? Utopia. And even then aliens might still consider humanity a mere animal or at best like the ‘technologically advanced but culturally and civilisationally backward’, ‘Klingons’ in Star Trek.
ARTICLE 2
Obama, Romney agree to have women in all-male Masters – Updated: 2012-04-06 11:24 (Agencies)
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama believes women should be allowed to join the all-male Augusta National Golf Club, the White House said on Thursday, adding pressure on the exclusive 80-year-old organization to drop its restrictive policy.
“His personal opinion is that women should be admitted,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters, saying he had spoken to Obama about the issue, as the prestigious Masters tournament got under way in Augusta, Georgia.
In a rare moment of agreement with Obama, Republican front-runner Mitt Romney, the Democratic president’s likely opponent in the Nov 6 election, said if it were up to him, “of course I’d have women in Augusta.”
The question of whether women should be allowed to become members at the home of the Masters has been around for years. But it took on added significance after Ginni Rometty became chief executive officer of IBM, one the tournament’s longtime sponsors, in January.
The White House weighed in on the issue during an election campaign in which Obama and his fellow Democrats are seeking to exploit a “gender gap” in polls showing the president ahead of Republican presidential contenders with women voters. Obama is hosting a conference on women and the economy on Friday.
Carney was asked whether Obama believed the men’s-only Augusta club should open its ranks to women, especially given Rometty’s position.
“It is obviously up to the club to decide,” Carney said at the daily White House briefing. “He believes Augusta should admit women. You know, we’re kind of long past the time when women should be excluded from anything.”
Club chairman Billy Payne was pressed on the eve of the Masters on whether the club would alter its policy.
And in keeping with the club’s secretive traditions, he refused on Wednesday to provide a clear answer, saying only that membership issues were not for public debate.
Club mum on ladies at Masters – Updated: 2012-04-06 07:52 (China Daily)
The prickly issue of whether women should be allowed to join the exclusive al-male Augusta National Golf Club refuses to go away.
On the eve of the Masters, chairman Billy Payne was again peppered with questions about whether the 80-year-old club would change its restrictive policy.
In keeping with the club’s secretive traditions, he refused to provide a clear answer when asked repeatedly by the media, saying only that membership issues were not for public debate.
“Once again, that deals with a membership issue and I’m not going to answer it,” he told a news conference on Wednesday.
The issue of whether women should be allowed to become members at the home of the Masters has been around for years – most notably a decade ago when Martha Burk led a series of protests – but took on added significance after Ginni Rometty was recently named Chief Executive Officer of IBM.
IBM, the world’s largest technology services company, is a long-standing sponsor of the Masters and its past four CEOs have been granted membership to Augusta National.
The club now faces a dilemma of whether to change its policy to allow Rometty to join or spurn one of its major sponsors, but Payne refused to say whether the issue had even been discussed.
“One, we don’t talk about our private deliberations,” he said. “Number two, we especially don’t talk about it when a named candidate is a part of the question.”
Augusta’s invitation-only membership has been steeped in secrecy since the conservative club opened in 1932. Women are allowed to play the course only if invited by a member but cannot become members themselves.
The club does not reveal its full list of members, believed to be around 300, although it is known that some of the powerful men from industry and finance, including Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, are members.
It was not until 1990 that Augusta National invited its first black member, businessman Ron Townsend, following a row over racial discrimination at the whites-only Shoal Creek club in Alabama that was selected to host the PGA Championship.
IBM played a big part in the change, joining other sponsors in putting pressure on Shoal Creek by pulling its television advertisements.
Like Augusta, the club has kept mum on the subject and not commented on whether Rometty should be invited.
Reuters in Augusta, Georgia
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
There should be 10 clubs or club areas (if not time schedules) per club, multiplied by specific faith groups in list 2.
ORGANIC SINGLE GENDER
1) Male Hetero only.
2) Female Hetero only.
3) Male Hetero and Gay only (no Females).
4) Female Hetero and Lesbian only (no Males).
NON-ORGANIC SINGLE GENDER
5) Male Gay only.
6) Female Lesbian only.
7) Mixed Male and Female Hetero and Lesbian or Gay – no inbetweeners.
INTER GENDER ONLY
8) Everything else inbetween ONLY.
MIXED GENDER
9) Mixed Male and Female Hetero only.
MIXED GENDER DIVERSE
10) Everyone and everything else inbetween.
List 2 : (1) Monotheistic Diverse. (2) Poltheistic Diverse. (3) Monotheistic separate. (4) Polythestic seperate. (5) Interfaith Diverse.
Guess which will be the most diversity embracing that can be the only group or club that Obama can endorse or be a member of being the president of ALL citizens in the USA, the answer? : Democratic and diverse type 10-5 which is superior to all.
The single gender Augusta should be kept in place simply to keep tradition in place out of respect to 80 years of tradition. Augusta IS *MALE* and a private company, should have no impositions from the public on PC issues. Maybe to mirror the club, an ‘August’ Club can be invented. Hegelian dialectic! Stop practicing ‘impositions’ and CREATE new spaces rather than invading old ones! (See Santorum? That’s why Santorum type 9-3 fails . . . )?
ARTICLE 3
Obama under fire for ‘socialism’ – Published: 06 April, 2012, 13:40 – Edited: 06 April, 2012, 17:28
One Nation under Socialism (image from http://www.mcnaughtonart.com)
TAGS: Art, USA, Auction
Presidential portraits are usually meant to show leaders in a favorable light. But sometimes, there’s more to them than meets the eye. A painting depicting President Obama holding a burning Constitution is up for grabs for $300,000.
One Nation under Socialism is the creation of an artist from Utah, Jon McNaughton, who has been quoted as saying “like many Americans, I feel shock at the direction our country is heading in.”
According to McNaughton, the US federal government has been moving towards socialism for over a hundred years. The creator of One Nation under Socialism says however that he would never support “an ideology which will lead to the destruction of America.”
The Forgotten Man (image from mcnaughtonart.com)
“Socialism uses the illusion of offering fairness and justice for everyone by redistributing the wealth of the nation; picking and choosing winners and losers. This administration has taken over our health system, giving bailouts to the automotive industry, banking industry and energy industry. They support the Occupy Wall Street movement of increased taxing of the rich to pay for the welfare of the ‘less rich’. The Constitution never guaranteed equal things – only equal rights and justice. In America we should be free to succeed and free to fail,” the artist wrote on his website.
It’s not the first time President Obama has featured in a painting by McNaughton. In The Forgotten Man Obama was depicted standing on the Constitution, a scene McNaughton described as “the vanishing of the American dream.”
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
“Socialism uses the illusion of offering fairness and justice for everyone by redistributing the wealth of the nation; picking and choosing winners and losers. This administration has taken over our health system, giving bailouts to the automotive industry, banking industry and energy industry. They support the Occupy Wall Street movement of increased taxing of the rich to pay for the welfare of the ‘less rich’. The Constitution never guaranteed equal things – only equal rights and justice. In America we should be free to succeed and free to fail,” the artist wrote on his website.”
Not so. Socialism just ensures that there will be no EXTREME winners and no EXTREME losers. Society can do without both homeless and jobless citizens or multi-millionaires worth more than a few million, much less billionaires. The disparities inspire anger at the inequality, much like apartheid constitutions of semi-failed states posing as modern First World countries, and from what we hear, even the USA has problems in ensuring equality, though this is structural for USA rather than ideological. The US Constitution if applied properly without fail, should make USA a role model.
The Constitution never guaranteed equal things – only equal rights and justice.
TRUE, but given the extreme disparities of wealth distribution and political power distribution DUE TO lack of wealth distribution, the Constitution needs to be amended to limit sequestration of wealth which leads to sequestration of wealth bought power, even as wealth bought power must also be addressed by changes to Constitution.
ARTICLE 4
California Student in Relationship With Teacher Moves Out After Sexual Assault Arrest – by ALYSSA NEWCOMB | Good Morning America – 6 hours ago
A California student who left school, her family and her friends to live with her teacher boyfriend has ended the relationship after the teacher was arrested on charges of sexually assaulting another girl 14 years ago.
“He called me from jail and yes, I told him that we’re done,” Jordan Powers, 18, told ABC News in an exclusive interview. “I lost everything for this guy. I lost my senior year. I gave up all my friends at high school because they didn’t agree with me.”
James Hooker, 41, was arrested in Modesto, Calif., on Friday after police discovered he had an an alleged sexual relationship with a 17-year-old student in 1998.
Hooker has been under investigation for his involvement with Powers, his former business class student, with whom he appeared on national TV programs earlier this year to profess his love.
Hooker was charged with one count of oral copulation with a minor and is in jail, according to a statement from Modesto police.
“He told me that he met her online and he hung out with her just as friends and then he went to her house and she came out of the bathroom naked and he only touched her boobs and her legs,” Powers said. “He was freaked out so he left and went home. He said nothing else happened, but all of that was a lie.”
Despite the charges, Powers said nothing happened romantically between her and Hooker prior to her 18th birthday.
The teen said she believed the woman came forward now to help her see the truth about Hooker and rescue her from the relationship.
“My heart dropped. I felt betrayed. I just have a gut feeling there are other girls,” Jordan Powers said.
Her mother, Tammie Powers, has publicly tried to end the romance from the beginning and expressed relief at Hooker’s arrest.
“It’s my contention all along that he used authority and that he’s a predator,” she said.
But a reconciliation between mother and daughter isn’t happening just yet.
Jordan Powers said she is staying with a family friend in another state while she recovers from her heartbreak.
“How could he lie to me for all these months and look me in the eye and tell me he loves me?” she said. “I don’t know how someone could have such a cold heart.”
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Phenotype predator? Or inter-phenotypically predator-victim relationship (i.e. certain relationships could end in failure because of the energy ‘enmity’ natural in ALL similar phenotypes)? Could some FBI types put together profiles of “compatible-long lasting-stable” and “end-in-divorce-murder” matches THEN distribute as a form of educational booklet? This will help naturally incompatible phenotypes from marrying or identify host-parasite relationships. Also certain types do better in certain industries etc.. this could help students decide which field they can best excel in rather than being influenced by friends or family, surroundings etc.. A injunction or approach prohibition order or at worst require that the wealthier party leave for a another neighbourhood WITH HELP from the state (to find a job etc.. also for easier monitoring) – should be enough though in this case, jail is expensive and unnecessary.
ARTICLE 5
Zimmerman lawyer: Client convicted by media – April 6, 2012 8:31 AM
(CBS News) Lawyers for George Zimmerman said their client has been convicted by the media for the shooting of unarmed Florida teen Trayvon Martin, and that no crime was committed under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” statute because the neighborhood watch volunteer acted out of fear for his life.
Appearing on “CBS This Morning,” attorney Hal Uhrig said that the fatal shooting of Martin on February 26 has been presented by the media as a “rush to judgment story – I guess that started with Johnnie Cochran and the O.J. Simpson case. It’s certainly an example here. This case had momentum created by a lot of misinformation.”
Uhrig pointed, as an example, to a picture of Martin that shows him apparently as a “12-year-old boy instead of a 6’3″ [17]-year-old varsity football player who got into a confrontation with somebody six inches shorter than him.”
Complete Coverage: The Trayvon Martin Shooting
When asked by Charlie Rose what Zimmerman would like to tell the public about the events of that night, Uhrig replied, “The short version of that is that he didn’t commit any crime. He was where he was allowed to be, not committing a crime, confronted by someone else who started the violent confrontation physically. He was attacked, broke his nose, hit his head into the ground and he defended himself. That’s not against the law.”
Uhrig said the Florida “Stand Your Ground” statute applied because Zimmerman feared for his life: “One of the points people have said, the force [used against Martin] was too much, even if he broke his nose and slammed his head into the ground. Many people remember the case of Liam Neeson’s wife – fell on a little ski slope, hit her head one time on the ground, and died. We’re familiar with the shaken baby syndrome: You shake a baby the brain shakes around inside the skull, you can die.
“When someone is pounding your head on the ground, and you’ve already had your nose broken, you could be in reasonable fear for great bodily harm – which is what the Florida statute calls for – and if you think you’re about to lose your life or be seriously injured like that, you’re absolutely entitled to take the necessary action to stop it.”
“Are you saying that’s what Mr. Zimmerman said – he thought he was in fear of losing his life and so he shot Trayvon Martin?” asked Rose.
“I can confirm that without telling you any specific words, that’s exactly what he thought,” Urhig replied.
Martin shooter’s family goes on the offensive
Trayvon Martin’s family asks feds to investigate
Report: Zimmerman described as “Jekyll and Hyde”
Craig Sonner, another Zimmerman attorney, said law enforcement agrees with Zimmerman’s decision to stay in hiding, citing threats against his client. In fact, both lawyers confirmed that they have not met with Zimmerman face-to-face, only speaking by phone, though Uhrig said an in-person meeting would happen “fairly soon.”
Uhrig explained that procedurally the State Attorney of Duvall County Angela Corey, who was assigned by Florida’s governor to the case, will take her time in her investigation and then decide whether or not to take it to a grand jury.
“If she takes it to a grand jury, then at least 12 members of the grand jury would have to vote for either an indictment or what’s called a ‘no true’ bill, which is to say, ‘Wow if you look at all the evidence now instead of just listening to the loudest voice in the crowd, it really was not a crime,'” Uhrig said.
To watch the complete interview with Hal Uhrig and Craig Sonner, click on the video player above
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Actually if a stranger even throws a first punch (the prelude to random killings for fun scenario – at night and in the middle of nowhere) danger of being killed if not flashing in anyone’s mind, would be ridiculous. Someone hits you in the middle of nowhere, you’d think they want to kill you for fun. Of course if you had a gun you’d shoot because if you didn’t you’d die anyway. After the initial punch also, a person being hit might not be thinking clearly anymore, more so if being bashed into the sidewalk. Clarity of thought would not even be the issue, much less racism, this was mere survival instinct.
ARTICLE 6
That’s why they call her JWoww! Jennifer Farley steals the show in a spray-on silver dress at Three Stooges premiere – by Iona Kirby – PUBLISHED: 05:29 GMT, 8 April 2012 | UPDATED: 18:10 GMT, 8 April 2012
The Three Stooges actors made for a delightful trio as they hammed it up for the crowd and cameras at the premiere of their new movie.
However they were overshadowed by Jennifer ‘JWoww’ Farley who stole the show from the film’s stars by turning up in a dazzling silver dress.
The frock clung to her every curve and left little to the imagination as the Jersey Shore star walked the red carpet.
Showing off her every curve: JWoww wore a skin-tight silver dress to the premiere of The Three Stooges in Los Angeles
JWoww, 26, completed her barely there outfit with studded sandals, hoop earrings and an elegant updo for her brunette tresses.
She was joined by her boyfriend Roger Matthews at the Los Angeles event but also took the time to cuddle up to Sean Hayes of Will and Grace fame, who plays one of the Three Stooges.
JWoww was the only member of the Jersey Shore gang to show up at the premiere despite each of them having a cameo role in the film, in which they play themselves.
Arm candy: JWoww posed up with boyfriend Roger Matthews at the bash tonight
Cuddling up: JWoww struck a pose alongside Sean Hayes who plays one of the Stooges
Quite a contrast: Meanwhile Jane Lynch, who plays a nun in the movie, covered up in a blouse and wide-leg trousers
Glee star Jane Lynch was also on hand but went for an entirely different look in a patterned blue blouse and wide-leg black trousers.
The movie sees the 51-year-old in a very different role to her Glee alias Sue Sylvester as she plays Mother Superior, a nun.
Sean Hayes who plays Larry, Chris Diamantopoulos who plays Moe, and Will Sasso who plays Curly, arrived at the event in casual attire.
Slapstick: Actors Chris Diamontopoulos, top, Sean Hayes and Will Sasso, bottom, hammed it up for the cameras
Spot the difference: The trio arrived in casual attire before sneaking off and getting into character
Larking around: The three put on quite the show for the cameras and the crowd as they promoted their upcoming movie
Silly: The gang left and then returned in full costume eating chinese food while in a carriage
They then threw a spanner in the works for the crowd as they snuck off and then returned in full costume, pulling up at the bash in a carriage while eating chinese food.
The trio larked around in matching tuxedos, posing in a series of ridiculous poses much to the delight of the premiere’s attendees.
The slapstick comedy, directed and produced by the Farrelly brothers, is due for release on April 13.
Belly laughs: Sean Hayes plays Larry, Chris Diamantopoulos plays Moe, and Will Sasso plays Curly in the slapstick comedy
Blondes have more fun: Becki Newton (L) and Stefanie Scott chose colourful summery outfits for the sunny evening event
Girl power: (L-R) Nicky Whelan, Brenda Song, and Christine Woods all threw their arms around each other as they smiled on the red carpet
The story sees the three men stumble into a murder plot and wind up starring in a reality TV show after trying to save their childhood orphanage.
The movie boasts a star-studded cast which includes Sofia Vergara, Jennifer Hudson, Larry David and Kate Upton.
Sofia was not on hand at the event tonight as she is currently in New York to host Saturday Night Live.
Party people: (L-R) Vanessa Angel, Carley Craig and Perrey Reeves all showed their support for the star-studded film
Happy days: Carrie Fisher (L) and Erin Allin O’Reilly looked excited to see the film ahead of its April 13 release
Comments (7)
Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts, or debate this issue live on our message boards.
The comments below have been moderated in advance.
Who ARE all these people? Talk about D List!
– LuLu, NoVa, USA, 08/4/2012 13:10
Rating 145
OMG, Who would want to see this film.
– paul, How to upset DM readers who think everything is real, 08/4/2012 12:39
Rating 93
J-Wo, woob, woob, woob, woob – she is hot!!
– Frank, Detroit – Michigan – USA, 08/4/2012 12:37
Rating 26
This movie looks like such a horrendous stinker, they’ll probably have to hand out clothespins with the tickets.
– Yoda, in a galaxy far, far away, 08/4/2012 12:27
Rating 75
Oh wow I haven’t seen Brenda Song in a while. Glad to see she’s healthy and happy.
– Amelie, New York City, 08/4/2012 12:24
Rating 41
Probably the worst film after ‘springbreakers’
– Naya, London, 08/4/2012 09:44
Rating 37
Ste looks amazing Nice to see her face had calmed down. She looked a bit cat like last time I saw her
– RB 007, Liverpool. UK, 08/4/2012 09:18
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
This lot are so privileged and have played so many characters (making them indirectly uncommitted to their roles) that there is no point watching them act. Also there is nothing real about being on permanent holiday or clubbing every night yet having no discernible source of income or actually working. This is not acting, this is ‘being themselves’ having fun while society crumbles around them.
Could the casting directors or producers stop using relatives and friends and actually hold REAL auditions so that someone off the street, hungry, and freshly learning to display freshly learnt acting skills or an organic sense of self (especially not worth millions so the general 99% audience can REALLY relate to them) and ready to throw themselves into the role would be better – there is a nominally insincere incongruity, residual mockery and complaisance about the plutocrat no matter what role – even if poor or so sick or so ill or disabled – or no matter how young that has the final effect of taking away from the viewer rather than adding on to them – soul theft . . . ). Also consistency and as few crossovers as possible would be good. Lookalikes are also bad in many ways. The last thing the 99% need is 1%rers playing 99%ters (much like ‘blackface’ actors playing Africans or African Americans.). For example J-Lo’s Jenny from the Block series of songs was an indicator she had hit that plutocrat level, and was trying to qualify her ‘poor’ roots, compensating for ‘toffness’. That can’t be done for real. Unless a habit of giving away enough to remain ‘from the block’.
Well the day anyone reaches 401K in personal asset, much less 4.01M, is the day that the organic feel disappears and they should retire. Any film or art connoiseur would concur. The best acting disappears with security that wealth brings. Players of 99% people must be by 99% people, much like 1% people should play 1%people (or boxers should play boxers – the Rocky the Boxer series would have been tremendously better played by an ACTUAL boxer though the script was quite organic . . . the later backgrounds in the later films were especially bad, gilded gold and plush curtains, ‘rat pack’ style suits, champagne and roses in 5 star restaurants etc..), IF either group does not worry they will make a mockery of their own group in the process (which needs a sincere love of where they were from AND still in . . . ).
More artificiality that who knows has led to the immense poverty and extreme wealth sequestration plaguing the world today. The sense of proportion is afflicted by ‘psyche/psychic mismatch’ of the actors and their roles or depicted persons and groups, the deeper implications and effects on society are unconscionable and doubtless harmful.
ARTICLE 7
The Earth is full By Paul Gilding, Special to CNN – April 8, 2012 — Updated 1339 GMT (2139 HKT) Paul Gilding: World crisis is coming
Paul Gilding: The demands we place on the environment far exceed its capacity
He says we are heading for a day when economic growth will reach its limit on Earth
It makes sense to start planning for changes needed to adapt to the coming crisis, he says
Gilding: Allies’ response in World War II showed our capability to change quickly and survive
Editor’s note: Paul Gilding, author of “The Great Disruption,” is an advocate and adviser to nongovernmental organizations and businesses and the former chief executive of Greenpeace. He spoke at the TED2012 conference in February. TED is a nonprofit dedicated to “Ideas worth spreading” which it makes available through talks posted on its website.
(CNN) — For 50 years the environmental movement has unsuccessfully argued that we should save the planet for moral reasons, that there were more important things than money. Ironically, it now seems it will be money — through the economic impact of climate change and resource constraint — that will motivate the sweeping changes necessary to avert catastrophe.
The reason is we have now reached a moment where four words — the earth is full — will define our times. This is not a philosophical statement; this is just science based in physics, chemistry and biology. There are many science-based analyses of this, but they all draw the same conclusion — that we’re living beyond our means.
The eminent scientists of the Global Footprint Network, for example, calculate that we need about 1.5 Earths to sustain this economy. In other words, to keep operating at our current level, we need 50% more Earth than we’ve got.
Watch Paul Gilding’s TED Talk
In financial terms, this would be like always spending 50% more than you earn, going further into debt every year. But of course, you can’t borrow natural resources, so we’re burning through our capital, or stealing from the future.
While they use different words, leaders and experts around the world are acknowledging this. Chinese Environment Minister Zhou Shengxian said last year, “The depletion, deterioration and exhaustion of resources and the worsening ecological environment have become bottlenecks and grave impediments to (our) economic and social development.” If I had said that in the ’90s, when I was the global head of Greenpeace, it would have been dismissed as doom-and-gloom extremism!
Paul Gilding: The Earth is full
TED.com: How we wrecked the ocean
Even the previous heresy, that economic growth has limits, is on the table. Belief in infinite growth on a finite planet was always irrational, but it is the nature of denial to ignore hard evidence. Now denial is evaporating, even in the financial markets. As influential fund manager Jeremy Grantham of GMO says: “The fact is that no compound growth is sustainable. If we maintain our desperate focus on growth, we will run out of everything and crash.” Or as peak oil expert Richard Heinberg argues, we are moving beyond peak oil and into “peak everything.”
Despite this emerging understanding, the growth concept is so deeply ingrained in our thinking that we will keep pushing economic growth as hard as we can, at whatever cost is required.
As a result, the crisis will be big, it will be soon, and it will be economic, not environmental. The fact is the planet will take further bludgeoning, further depleting its capital, but the economy cannot — so we’ll respond not because the environment is under great threat, but because the science and economics shows that something far more important to us is jeopardized — economic growth.
TED.com: The biggest health threat facing women
A good indicator is that, despite the recession of the past few years, oil and food prices are approaching record highs again, driven by underlying, long-term trends that even a recession can’t slow down. Grantham calls this “the most important economic event since the Industrial Revolution.”
If serious growth returns, the resulting resource price spikes, particularly oil and food, will soon kill it again. As a result, what we are facing is not a few bad years of slow growth like this past recession, but a fundamental shift — the end of cheap resources and an environment in a state of collapse.
Even normally cautious bodies like the International Energy Agency and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are sounding the alarm, with the latter recently releasing a comprehensive report forecasting a world in 2050 that will be defined by resource constraint and its economic impacts. They even dare to ask: “Will the growth process undermine itself?”
TED.com: Peter Diamandis says abundance is our future
So when this crisis hits, will we respond or will we simply slide into collapse? Crisis elicits a powerful human response, whether it be personal health, natural disaster, corporate crisis or national threat. Previously immovable barriers to change quickly disappear.
In this case, the crisis will be global and will manifest as the end of economic growth, thereby striking at the very heart of our model of human progress. While that will make the task of ending denial harder, it also means what’s at risk is, quite simply, everything we hold to be important. The last time this happened was World War II, and our response to that is illustrative of both the denial and delay process and the likely form our response to this crisis will take.
TED.com: The global power shift
When we look at history we tend to see the progress of events as inevitable, but it was rarely so at the time. Indeed, the UK’s powerful response to Hitler and the United States’ equally extraordinary mobilization after Pearl Harbor both followed long years of denial and debate.
Many argued that the threat wasn’t that great, the response would be too expensive to afford, the public wouldn’t support it. Sound familiar? But when the response came, when the scale of the threat was finally accepted, our response was breathtaking. As Churchill told his country: “It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.”
With denial gone, governments knew what was “necessary.” They directed industry to support the war — banning civilian auto production just four days after Pearl Harbor. They raised massive amounts of money to fund investment and technology research at an extraordinary scale — indeed, U.S. spending on the war rose from 1.6% of GDP in 1940 to 37% just five years later. To achieve this, they curtailed personal consumption and drove remarkable behavior change to free up financial and other resources for the war effort.
Do you find this hard to imagine today? Then try to imagine the alternative — that in a collapsing global economy and society we will stand by and simply watch the slide. There is no precedent in modern history on which to base that conclusion and plenty of evidence for the alternative. Humanity may be slow, but we are not stupid. Get ready for the great disruption.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
CNN is becoming a disinfo media agent writing disinfo via increasingly inaccurate propaganda. Also see the ‘Agrarian-Subsistence Skyscraper’ below.
There are 148,940,000 km² = 57,491,000 square miles of land (29.2 % of total surface) AND 36,794,240,000 acres (36+ billion acres)
So considering that . . . food production now takes up 40 percent of the Earth’s land surface . . . (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_crops_map.html)
Land IF distributed at 1 acre per family or 4 unrelated individuals, for a very good diet and much living space and no longer encroaching on natural habitats of wild-life (this could be 3 acres but we have to consider that within certain areas environments are too harsh and only the wealthy will be able to cultivate such areas – suggest that the wealthiest rehabilitate unliveable areas, their sequestration of wealth is quite useless . . . ) , we’d still be able to retain ALL existing urban areas.
. . . go hi-rise with the agriculture areas, and problem is instantly solved. See below diagram :
If humanity cannot make the most of this planet, humanity does not deserve to leave this planet. If humanity cannot share wealth and resources or innovate, humanity does not deserve to leave this planet. If humanity cannot even get their media portals to tell the truth, allow apartheid or bad laws to persist, cannot even apply the Human Rights Charter, allow signatories to be breakers of UN laws to sit in the Human Rights Council, humanity's 'leaders' are as of now FAIILURES and LIARS. The medieval era is still here, CNN type media is very inaccurate in this article at least !
Humanity only needs WEALTH DISTRIBUTION and LAND DISTRIBUTION.
Shame on you CNN! Bad reporting with skewed agendas that will harm planet Earth’s inhabitants.
There is NO WORLD (population) CRISIS, the EARTH IS NOT FULL. Withdraw your false flaggers CNN ! “The Great Disruption” is propaganda. There is though a pollution crisis. Greenpeace cannot be serious about associating with such lies. The UN cannot be associating with Greenpeace as well. If CNN is honest at all.
Read link below. https://malaysiandemocracy.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/3966/ (Article 3) for more on how even a few thousand people can survive on 1 acre . . .
malaysiandemocracy 